"May add" house fortunes and head for numbers

[Zorbeltuss]

Head for numbers:

Whenever you roll for household events, you may add your Cunning rank to your Status test result.

Head of House:

Add +2 to the results of all Status tests.

So if I am reading correctly, it is your choice whether or not to add that bonus. But then comes the interpretation issue, can you do that *after* the result is known?

If so, it basically gives you two outcomes to choose between, making it very powerful, as it becomes very easy to avoid negative events.

[Kajani]

I would be a bit sceptic for that "decide after knowing of the result". A higher result tends to be better in most cases, but I did not believe that the head of numbers could save you from nearly any misfortune... That might be TOO powerful.

[DaimosofRedstone]

I would be a bit sceptic for that "decide after knowing of the result". A higher result tends to be better in most cases, but I did not believe that the head of numbers could save you from nearly any misfortune... That might be TOO powerful.

After a certain amount it makes no matter.
Once you get over 30 the result cannot be but positive. A well-equipped holding + Steward specialty and head for numbers garanties that nothing bad can happen.

[Paedrig]

You can always have bad dices even with very good Holding etc.
And beside this there is always the question what good event you did get. If you can choose AFTER your roll your dices you might have the chances to get an even better result by applying the benefit-based modification of your dice roll or not.

I would tend to the position that you can not chose if the modification applies AFTER you roll your dices.
It is powerfull enough that you get the modification...

[DaimosofRedstone]

@Paedrig:
That is my point, after a certain number of modifiers, bonus dice and merit you cannot have bad enough dice to tear it down.

Thats also the problem with new additional wealth holdings that pop up on the forum.
You would need new tablkes for house fortune if you do not want gamebreakers.

[Parker]

As a GM I have never allowed that "may": If the player character its the one that is making the roll (and with that I mean that he was the one that administrate the household for that period), his cunning rank its added to the result. And that its. Dont give him the option. He can't choose to "not to use his mathematical ability for better luck".

After a certain amount it makes no matter.
Once you get over 30 the result cannot be but positive. A well-equipped holding + Steward specialty and head for numbers garanties that nothing bad can happen.

It's the "Littlefinger" effect. A good steward with a good status can make miracles in your lands.

But, at least in my opinion, that means that:

- The Lord has to be the steward (any other member of the house has lesser status and, for that matter, his dice pool its not so good).
- The Lord has to be at his land time enough to administrate his household (if he delegates this on another character, like an NPC, its that NPC who roll with his stats and no with the stats of the Lord).
- The Lord has to learn stewardship, a boring matter that can be found in books, something that keeps him away of his sword practice, his riding practice, his warfare study, etc. No every Lord its gonna be interested in numbers (or be good at them).

[coldwind]

I would be a bit sceptic for that "decide after knowing of the result". A higher result tends to be better in most cases, but I did not believe that the head of numbers could save you from nearly any misfortune... That might be TOO powerful.

After a certain amount it makes no matter.
Once you get over 30 the result cannot be but positive. A well-equipped holding + Steward specialty and head for numbers garanties that nothing bad can happen.

For what it's worth, your PCs must be awfully friendly folks to have so few significant enemies that some aren't willing to spend or even burn destiny to reduce another House's House Fortunes rolls.

Just saying, nothing is guaranteed.

[Lamech]

@Paedrig:
That is my point, after a certain number of modifiers, bonus dice and merit you cannot have bad enough dice to tear it down.

You need something like a total of 30 dice+modifiers. While its possible (Especially if assistance is possible, but I'm not sure if it is.), its pretty hard for a starting PC house.

Its not too hard to make there be a low chance of a bad fortune roll (especially if you start in a high wealth area) but its still there. Also the "+1 to something" result isn't actually all that good. Remember you could have gotten +1 to whatever you wanted.

Thats also the problem with new additional wealth holdings that pop up on the forum.
You would need new tablkes for house fortune if you do not want gamebreakers.

You aren't limited to one holding of each kind. You can have 5 mines if you have enough wealth. (Or one really rich mine.) As long as the new holdings aren't something totally inane it won't be any worse than a port.

For what it's worth, your PCs must be awfully friendly folks to have so few significant enemies that some aren't willing to spend or even burn destiny to reduce another House's House Fortunes rolls.

Just saying, nothing is guaranteed.

Or you know, turning your banner houses against you, framing you for dishonorable acts, invading your lands (blame it on bandits), wrecking your septs... Really if they Also if your house is in decent shape, and no one is causing you trouble? You should become more and more prosperous. You dig irrigation canals in your fields, train more artisans, build more market places, acquire new tech (pyromancer powders or glass making), build a nice fishing fleet.

I do think that making the house fortunes of an enemy a little worse probably isn't worth a burnt destiny though. (Plus what would a failed test even be? I assume the lightest failure possible, or just -1 to a house trait.)

[Pytorb]

@Paedrig:
That is my point, after a certain number of modifiers, bonus dice and merit you cannot have bad enough dice to tear it down.

Thats also the problem with new additional wealth holdings that pop up on the forum.
You would need new tablkes for house fortune if you do not want gamebreakers.

Oops, I thought I'd posted my updated table up months ago. It now goes up to 48+ and has negative results as high as 46. Here it is http://www.greenronin.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7812&p=108651#p108651

That is also why most of the additional Wealth resources I posted are +1, +2 or +1D3 rather than the +5 in the official rules.

[coldwind]

For what it's worth, your PCs must be awfully friendly folks to have so few significant enemies that some aren't willing to spend or even burn destiny to reduce another House's House Fortunes rolls.

Just saying, nothing is guaranteed.

Or you know, turning your banner houses against you, framing you for dishonorable acts, invading your lands (blame it on bandits), wrecking your septs... Really if they Also if your house is in decent shape, and no one is causing you trouble? You should become more and more prosperous. You dig irrigation canals in your fields, train more artisans, build more market places, acquire new tech (pyromancer powders or glass making), build a nice fishing fleet.

I do think that making the house fortunes of an enemy a little worse probably isn't worth a burnt destiny though. (Plus what would a failed test even be? I assume the lightest failure possible, or just -1 to a house trait.)

Well, a spent destiny is -1D, which is quite useful on its own.

I'd easily argue that you could also flip the "add +5 to a test" option for a burnt destiny to "apply -5 to a test".

But yeah, there's no real "failing" for a House Fortune roll.

[Zorbeltuss]

I'd call it perfectly acceptable to burn destiny to ignore the dice and decide the fortunes of a house for a month (would be doom or boon, depending on what you want).

[Daerys]

@Paedrig:
Thats also the problem with new additional wealth holdings that pop up on the forum.
You would need new tablkes for house fortune if you do not want gamebreakers.

You're still limited by two holding on a domain, even if there is hundred of holding poping up on the forum, the only way to have a lot is to have a lot of land.

[Zorbeltuss]

Mind you, that rule makes little sense if your holdings are maester, Sept and artisan.

[DaimosofRedstone]

@Paedrig:
Thats also the problem with new additional wealth holdings that pop up on the forum.
You would need new tablkes for house fortune if you do not want gamebreakers.

You're still limited by two holding on a domain, even if there is hundred of holding poping up on the forum, the only way to have a lot is to have a lot of land.

That would bring to a comfortable four holdings for most starting houses without even trying. Land is cheap.

[coldwind]

@Paedrig:
Thats also the problem with new additional wealth holdings that pop up on the forum.
You would need new tablkes for house fortune if you do not want gamebreakers.

You're still limited by two holding on a domain, even if there is hundred of holding poping up on the forum, the only way to have a lot is to have a lot of land.

Where are you getting that limit from? I don't recall ever seeing it as a rule (except some variation in house rules).

[Lamech]

Its in the errata. Its a bit silly IMO. For example the grand sept in King's Landing is probably several Sept holdings. The port is another holding at least. And they most definitely have a maester holding. And the pyromancers should be a fourth sort of holding.

[coldwind]

Its in the errata. Its a bit silly IMO. For example the grand sept in King's Landing is probably several Sept holdings. The port is another holding at least. And they most definitely have a maester holding. And the pyromancers should be a fourth sort of holding.

Huh... Never noticed that.

[Flagg]

Its in the errata. Its a bit silly IMO. For example the grand sept in King's Landing is probably several Sept holdings. The port is another holding at least. And they most definitely have a maester holding. And the pyromancers should be a fourth sort of holding.

I think this is more a matter of the House creation rules breaking down at the royal level than being inappropriate at the house level.

[DaimosofRedstone]

It is also silly at the house level.
I could have a Maester and a skilled Smith in my castle.
But if i happen to secure the services of a skilled bard, i need another holding.

[Lamech]

Its in the errata. Its a bit silly IMO. For example the grand sept in King's Landing is probably several Sept holdings. The port is another holding at least. And they most definitely have a maester holding. And the pyromancers should be a fourth sort of holding.

I think this is more a matter of the House creation rules breaking down at the royal level than being inappropriate at the house level.

Naw, its still a problem. Suppose I have a mines. I build a hall over it. I build a sept. Now I no longer have the spare room for a maester? It takes a freaking room for his stuff! Suppose I go and build a bigger castle? Still no spare rooms? It makes sense for things like mines, but it becomes weird when having guilds conflicts with artisans.

Some sorts of holdings that take up a lot of room should have this problem (mines, ports, vineyards etc.) but others like a maester, sept or a artisan it seems weirder. Indeed, industry should tend to gather. If you have a guild you'll want a market to sell your goods and artisans to make them. And having a market, and guilds shouldn't conflict with having a maester.

[Pytorb]

Its in the errata. Its a bit silly IMO. For example the grand sept in King's Landing is probably several Sept holdings. The port is another holding at least. And they most definitely have a maester holding. And the pyromancers should be a fourth sort of holding.

I think this is more a matter of the House creation rules breaking down at the royal level than being inappropriate at the house level.

Naw, its still a problem. Suppose I have a mines. I build a hall over it. I build a sept. Now I no longer have the spare room for a maester? It takes a freaking room for his stuff! Suppose I go and build a bigger castle? Still no spare rooms? It makes sense for things like mines, but it becomes weird when having guilds conflicts with artisans.

Some sorts of holdings that take up a lot of room should have this problem (mines, ports, vineyards etc.) but others like a maester, sept or a artisan it seems weirder. Indeed, industry should tend to gather. If you have a guild you'll want a market to sell your goods and artisans to make them. And having a market, and guilds shouldn't conflict with having a maester.

It makes even less sense when the rules don't forbid more than one Maester. I split the Wealth Holdings into natural ones where the no more than two per land holding rule from chapter 6 of the main rulebook applies and constructed ones where there is a seperate limit of one per domain. I then went rather to town on writing new ones...

Speaking of land holdings and towns should Cities (and possibly Towns) be one of the two per land holding limit? They would, even in medieval times, have a reasonably sized footprint.

[Flagg]

It makes even less sense when the rules don't forbid more than one Maester.

Why should they? I don't remember any one-maester-per House rule established in the books. We have a direct example of at least two maesters in one keep in the books. Pycelle, and the other one who attended to Jon Arryn on his deathbed but was sent away (I don't recall his name).

[Pytorb]

It makes even less sense when the rules don't forbid more than one Maester.

Why should they? I don't remember any one-maester-per House rule established in the books. We have a direct example of at least two maesters in one keep in the books. Pycelle, and the other one who attended to Jon Arryn on his deathbed but was sent away (I don't recall his name).

But that's Kings Landing. I would imagine that there would be many House Maesters in Kings Landing serving their Lord plus extra ones serving the Grand Maester (even if only as bureaucrats). I don't think there any examples of two Maesters directly serving the same Lord in the same Castle, though I'm happy to be corrected.

[coldwind]

Stannis also had Pylos and Cressen as maesters

[DaimosofRedstone]

There is no reason why one should have two maesters for any amount of time (apart from a 'change of the guards') but then there is no reason why one shouldn't feed and cloth two if one wants.
One the holding side i would cap the benefits though, meaning one maester is as good as two when it comes to house fortunes.